R v Senior - [2013] NZHC 1828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-5703 [2013] NZHC 1828

THE QUEEN

v

TODD WALTER SENIOR

Hearing: 3 - 5 and 8 - 10 and 12 July 2013

Appearances:

J L S Shaw for Crown
P J Kaye for Defendant

Judgment:

19 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel: P J Kaye, Auckland

R v SENIOR [2013] NZHC 1828 [19 July 2013]

Introduction

[1] The defendant, Mr Senior, faced trial on 11 counts under the Misuse of Drugs

Act 1975 (“Act”). The trial commenced on 1 July 2013. Prior to summing up on

12 July 2013, and pursuant to s 347 Crimes Act 1961 (“CA”), I discharged Mr Senior on counts 1, 2 and 5 of the indictment. I said that my reasons would follow as they now do.

[2] The first eight of the 11 counts against Mr Senior were charges that he, together with others, had manufactured a Class A controlled drug, being methamphetamine, that being an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(b) of the Act. I refer to these counts as the “manufacturing counts”. The distinction between each manufacturing count was the alleged period of, and parties to, manufacture.

[3] The Crown charged Mr Senior as a party on the manufacturing counts pursuant to s 66(1)(b) CA. Accordingly, and amongst other things, the Crown had to adduce evidence that a manufacture of methamphetamine had in fact taken place and that Mr Senior had “assisted” that manufacture.

Evidence

[4] The evidence adduced by the Crown included text messages (some of which Mr Senior sent or received), evidence of members of the Police force, expert Police and Environmental Science & Research (“ESR”) evidence and a memorandum of agreed facts. The defence elected not to call evidence.

[5] On 9 July 2013, Crown counsel stated that the Crown accepted that there was insufficient evidence to prove that there had been a manufacture for the purposes of count 3, and that the Crown would not offer any evidence in support of that count. I discharged Mr Senior on count 3 accordingly.

[6] As I have said, I discharged Mr Senior on counts 1, 2 and 5 prior to summing up. I did so of my own motion, having considered the evidence, closing addresses and additional oral submissions that the Crown made on 11 July 2013. Ultimately,

the jury found Mr Senior guilty on counts 4, 6, 8 (these three being manufacturing counts), 9 and 10 (being, respectively, representative charges of supply and offering to supply methamphetamine). The jury found Mr Senior not guilty on counts 7 and
11.

Reasons

[7] There can be no dispute that a Judge has power to discharge a defendant on a charge if a properly directed jury could not convict on the evidence offered by the Crown, taking that evidence at its highest.1 In short, that is the reason I discharged Mr Senior on counts 1, 2 and 5.

Count 1

[8] The Crown case on count 1…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Senior

Details

AGLC: R v Senior [2013] NZHC 1828
Case: [2013] NZHC 1828
Decision Date: 19 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of The Queen v Todd Walter Senior, where the defendant was charged with 11 counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The charges related to the manufacturing and supply of methamphetamine. The court discharged Mr Senior on three counts, while the jury found him guilty on five other counts, and not guilty on the remaining three. The legal issues before the court included whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges and whether the jury could infer Mr Senior's involvement in the manufacturing and supply of methamphetamine based on the evidence presented.

The court considered the evidence provided by the Crown, which included text messages, police testimony, expert evidence, and a memorandum of agreed facts. The court evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence and the inferences that could be drawn from it. The judge determined that, taking the evidence at its highest, no properly directed jury could convict Mr Senior on counts 1, 2, and 5 due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in the manufacturing process.

The reasoning behind the court's decision to discharge Mr Senior on these counts was based on the lack of concrete evidence linking him to the manufacturing activities. The court concluded that the text messages and other evidence were not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Senior assisted in the manufacture of methamphetamine. As a result, the court discharged Mr Senior on these three counts.

In summary, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against Mr Senior for counts 1, 2, and 5, leading to his discharge on those counts. The jury, however, found Mr Senior guilty on five other counts related to the manufacturing and supply of methamphetamine. The final orders of the court reflect the outcome of the trial, with Mr Senior being discharged on certain counts and found guilty on others.

Orders